Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_9/V16NO905.TXT

Text File | 1993-08-03 | 33KB | 735 lines

Space Digest                Thu, 22 Jul 93       Volume 16 : Issue 905

Today's Topics:
                           address of EJASA
        Bad news from the Senate on Delta Clipper. Help needed
                    cheap space computers (2 msgs)
                         Clementine (3 msgs)
            DC-X Prophets and associated problems (2 msgs)
                        Hubble, Why the hurry?
                      message from Space Digest
      MESUR Pathfinder (Was Re: space news from April 12 AW&ST)
                        Moon Cable/Beanstalk.
                        problem w/ZHR equation
                           Space Movie/PR..
                           The U.S. and Mir
         Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 1993 15:06:43 -0400
From: Earl W Phillips <[e-mail]>
Subject: address of EJASA
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

Does anyone happen to have the e-mail address to EJASA?

*****************************************************************
*                                    | ====@====      ///////// *
* [e-mail]|     ``________//         *
*                                    |       `------'           *
*                 -JR-               | Space;........the final  *
*                                    | frontier...............  *
*****************************************************************

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 20:02:37 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bad news from the Senate on Delta Clipper. Help needed
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

The Senate markup of the DoD Authroization bill seems to be over. At the
moment, it looks very bad. Early indications are (and it may change) that
the Senate will authorize a total of $30 million for NASP, Spacelifter,
and SSRT. This is nowhere near the $75M SSRT needs to begin design of
the SX-2.

We MUST change this in the House Authorization bill which is marking
up next week. Please write, call, and fax Rep. Schroeder and ask her
to fully fund the BMDO SSRT program and build the SX-2.

The phone numbers of the House committee in question are given below.
If you have a representative in your state, please call and fax him or
her. In any case, please call and fax Rep. Schroeder (the subcommittee
chair) as well.

  Allen


    House Armed Services Committee - Research and Technology Subcommittee

Name                       Address            Phone      FAX
                                              (AC 202)   (AC 202)

Patricia Schroeder (D-CO)  2208 RH  20515     225-4431    225-5842
Bob Stump (R-AZ)            211 CH  20515     225-4576    225-6328
Dave McCurdy (D-OK)        2344 RH  20515     225-6165    225-9746
Jane Harman (D-CA)                            225-8220
Roscoe bartlett (R-MD)                        225-2721    225-2193
Don Johnson (D-GA)                            225-4101
Glen Browder (D-AL)        1630 LH  20515     225-3261    225-9020
Earl Hutto (D-FL)          2435 RH  20515     225-4136    225-5785
George Hochbrueckner (D-NY) 124 CH  20515     225-3826    225-0776
Martin Lancaster (D-NC)                       225-3415    225-0666
James H. Bilbray (D-NV)                       225-5965    225-8808
Chet Edwards (D-TX)                           225-6105    225-0350
Duncan L. Hunter (R-CA)     133 CH  20515     225-5672    225-0235
John R. Kasich (R-OH)      1131 LH  20515     225-5355
James V. Hansen (R-UT)     2466 RH  20515     225-0453    225-5857
Frank Tejeda (D-TX)                           225-1640    225-1641
Martin Meehan (D-MA)                          225-3411
Elizabeth Furse (D-OR)                        225-0855    225-9497
Steve Buyer (R-IN)                            225-5037    225-2267
Peter Torkildsen (R-MA)                       225-8020    225-8037
James Talent (R-MO)                           225-2561    225-2563

Ronald V. Dellums (D-CA)   2136 RH  20515     225-2661    225-9817
Robert K. Dornan (R-CA)    2402 CH  20515     225-2965    225-2075
Marilyn Lloyd (D-TN)       2406 RH  20515     225-3271    225-6974
John Tanner (D-TN)                            225-4714    225-1765
Pete Geren (D-TX)                             225-5071    225-2786

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------14 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 1993 15:27:22 -0400
From: Pat <[e-mail]>
Subject: cheap space computers
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>A much bigger practical problem is that the off-the-shelf hardware is
>designed to be air-cooled.  Unless you're willing to follow the Russian
>approach and pressurize the interior of your spacecraft -- which works,
>but introduces major new failure modes -- you can't use EISA anything
>on an unmanned spacecraft.


WOuldn't Mil-SPec Rad Hardened Commercial chips resolve this problem?
I think a lot of USAF  and USN stuff have to either cool on a sealed
system,  or use low pressure.  Actually,  interesting enough the
SSF systems, IBM is fielding are just Industrial spec commercial
gear in double sealed containers  to keep air in them.

Of course, the assumption is SSF will be pressurised most of the time.

apt
--

God put me on this Earth to accomplish certain things.  Right now,
I am so far behind, I will never die.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 1993 19:54:39 GMT
From: George William Herbert <[e-mail]>
Subject: cheap space computers
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <22k5aq$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>A much bigger practical problem is that the off-the-shelf hardware is
>>designed to be air-cooled.  Unless you're willing to follow the Russian
>>approach and pressurize the interior of your spacecraft -- which works,
>>but introduces major new failure modes -- you can't use EISA anything
>>on an unmanned spacecraft.
>
>WOuldn't Mil-SPec Rad Hardened Commercial chips resolve this problem?
>I think a lot of USAF  and USN stuff have to either cool on a sealed
>system,  or use low pressure.  Actually,  interesting enough the
>SSF systems, IBM is fielding are just Industrial spec commercial
>gear in double sealed containers  to keep air in them.
>Of course, the assumption is SSF will be pressurised most of the time.

SSF isn't an issue; unmanned probes and post-Freedom stations are.
(At least as I understand it 8-)

Mil-spec hardware isn't generally vaccum-rated.  They operate (sometimes)
at high altitude, but not _zero_ pressure.  The cooling problem will
be the same.

The double-sealed container route is perfectly reasonable for a manned,
and some unmanned, hardware solution.  For unmanned where maximum
reliability is a must, my personal favorite solution is embed in a
plastic block (pour epoxy in around it for example) and put copper
heat pipes in the plastic before it cures, to expedite removing
heat from the hottest items.  It's reliable and lasts forever.

-george william herbert
Retro Aerospace

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 18:40:00 GMT
From: Tim Harincar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clementine
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Harincar) writes:
>>How much of the surface is intended to be mapped? Poles included?
>
>All of it, at the lower resolutions.  Bear in mind, though, that lighting
>conditions at the poles are poor.
>
>>Do the 10m resloution spot images include any 'artificial' features
>>(ie Ranger, Lunar Orbiter, LM Ascent stage, S-IV stage impact sites)?
>
>I don't remember whether the spacecraft pointing is precise enough to
>let you pick and choose things to see at the 10m resolution.  I doubt
>that you could see the impact crater from something as small as a
>Ranger or a Lunar Orbiter.  I expect you could see an S-IVB crater,
>but I'm not sure how precisely the impact points are known.
>
>>How about other artifacts - Apollo sites, Lunakhod sites, Surveyors, etc.
>>Apollo & Lunakhod sould be easy since the astronauts turned up so much
>>new soil with there boots & rovers, should be good contrast...
>
>There isn't that big a contrast between the surface layers and the
>near-surface dust, and the astronauts didn't do *that* much digging.
>If you imaged those sites at a low Sun angle, you could probably see
>shadows from the bigger items; I seem to recall a Lunar Orbiter photo
>showing the shadow of a Surveyor.  But even an LM descent stage isn't
>going to be more than a bright point at 10m resolution.

The reason I started thinking about this was that in "Exploring Space
With a Camera" by NASA (can't remember the SP-number) there were Lunar
Orbiter photos of what was thought to be the Ranger VII impact crater
and also a photo of Surveyor I that clearly showed the shadow of the
soler panel/HGA boom.

The Ranger impact crater was pretty clear, but some higher rez photos
would help clarify details and show the splash pattern better.

--
tim harincar
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 1993 18:41:20 GMT
From: Dan Durda <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clementine
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Harincar) writes:
>>How much of the surface is intended to be mapped? Poles included?
>
>All of it, at the lower resolutions.  Bear in mind, though, that lighting
>conditions at the poles are poor.
>
>>Do the 10m resloution spot images include any 'artificial' features
>>(ie Ranger, Lunar Orbiter, LM Ascent stage, S-IV stage impact sites)?
>
>I don't remember whether the spacecraft pointing is precise enough to
>let you pick and choose things to see at the 10m resolution.  I doubt
>that you could see the impact crater from something as small as a
>Ranger or a Lunar Orbiter.  I expect you could see an S-IVB crater,
>but I'm not sure how precisely the impact points are known.
>

Resolution aside, before Apollo the only artificial crater identified on
the lunar surface was the Ranger 8 impact crater. It was identified in
Lunar Orbiter II photograph H70. The resolution here was about 3 meters. I'm
not sure if it would in fact show up 10 meter resoution - I do not recall the
size of the crater.

>>How about other artifacts - Apollo sites, Lunakhod sites, Surveyors, etc.
>>Apollo & Lunakhod sould be easy since the astronauts turned up so much
>>new soil with there boots & rovers, should be good contrast...
>
>There isn't that big a contrast between the surface layers and the
>near-surface dust, and the astronauts didn't do *that* much digging.
>If you imaged those sites at a low Sun angle, you could probably see
>shadows from the bigger items; I seem to recall a Lunar Orbiter photo
>showing the shadow of a Surveyor.  But even an LM descent stage isn't
>going to be more than a bright point at 10m resolution.

The Ranger 7 and 9 impact craters were identified on Apollo 16 panoramic
photographs as was the crater from the Apollo 14 SIVB stage. I recall that
the Ranger craters had distinctly bright rims and the Apollo 14 stage had
a prominent and unique system of bright and dark rays. The dark halo around
the Apollo 14 stage crater led to a re-examination of Apollo 14 500-mm
Hasselblad sequence photos and the identification of the Apollo 13 SIVB
stage crater. I can't comment on the resolution, but in the photos I have
seen the craters are quite distinct - quite a bit above the resolution limit
(whatever it was for the panoramic cameras).

I have seen photos of the LM's taken by panoramic cameras aboard the CM's.
Particularly, the CMP on Apollo 15 observed the landing sight with 20x-30x
gyro-mounted binoculars and I believe he was able to see the LM itself. He
certainly noticed that there was a bright halo about 150 meters across,
which was most likely material disturbed by the exhaust plume. This was
discussed as a good indicator for helping to locate the position of the LM
on future flights. The LM and LRV parked right next to it are visible as
bright spots with shadows on a 50x enlargement of the panoramic camera
photgraphs. Pretty interesting...

>--
>Altruism is a fine motive, but if you   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>want results, greed works much better.  |  [e-mail]  utzoo!henry

--Dan

--
Daniel D. Durda
Department of Astronomy
University of Florida
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 1993 19:18:37 GMT
From: "P. Douglas Reeder" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clementine
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
:
:I don't remember whether the spacecraft pointing is precise enough to
:let you pick and choose things to see at the 10m resolution.  I doubt
:that you could see the impact crater from something as small as a
:Ranger or a Lunar Orbiter.  I expect you could see an S-IVB crater,
:but I'm not sure how precisely the impact points are known.
:

At high resolution, ability to pick things to look at is very limited.
Oregon L-5 has been in communication with them to see what can be done
about looking for lavatube caves (for future lunar bases).  Entrances
from collapse trenches (sinuous rilles) will be difficult to spot unless
things line up just right.  Skylight entrances (rimless craters) should
be much easier to spot.


Doug Reeder                              Internet: [e-mail]
Div, Grad & Curl                         USENET:   ...!tektronix!reed!reeder
programming & derivative work
I am actively seeking scientific programming contracts.
--
Doug Reeder                              Internet: [e-mail]
Div, Grad & Curl                         USENET:   ...!tektronix!reed!reeder
programming & derivative work
I am actively seeking scientific programming contracts.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 1993 17:47:12 GMT
From: Vampy the Buffer Slayer <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

Source-Info:  Sender is really [e-mail]

When Gaubatz (sp?) spoke at OMSI I was hoping to ask some of the
very same questions. Tragically I was working at the time and so
was only able to sneak away for about 45 minutes. The 45 minutes
of his presentation I did see were pretty much promises of a rosy
future in space. I was kind of pissed off with that since I wanted
some more technical information.

Anyway, it occurs to me that most of the general public doesn't
remember the promises made about the space shuttle and is therefore
unlikely to get mad at BMDO/M.D. for failure to deliver. Furthermore,
continued funding for the program seems unlikely to materialize unless
it seems extremely profitable to pursue the SSRT approach. Congress
and the general public don't want to hear about the benefits of a
good solid reliable LEO transportation system framed in terms of
cheap satellite deployment -- They want Disneyland in the sky. Given
that every other possible approach to cheap (i.e. less than the space
shuttle) LEO transport is making the same promises, a realistic portrayal
of DC-1's probable capabilities would be a death sentence for the
program.

Anyway, that's my take on the hype.

......Andrew
--
This article was dictated to me in its entirety by the angel Moroni.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 1993 19:55:58 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DC-X Prophets and associated problems
Newsgroups: sci.space

Allen W. Sherzer ([e-mail]) wrote:

: >The claim of "cheap, routine access to space" - which is the same
: >comment made about the shuttle before it became operational.

: Can you be more specific? Why are these claims outrageous? Dennis thinks
: the engines won't work. I don't agree but that is the sort of arguement
: you need to make.

: You look only at the claims made by DC and Shuttle. I look at the technology,
 [stuff deleted]

Actually, I'm looking from the perspective of space programs history.. not
just shuttle OR DC, but rather any space program I've been able to think
about.. Shuttle is a significatly more complicated vehicle, and is older..
I expect DC to work better.. (it HAD better work better or we'll be
quite disappointed) The claims I've read range from $1000/pound to $20/pound
for the DC system. These SEEM to take into account the same unrealistic
"demand" beleifs that Shuttle did years ago.. (and for the record, shuttle
COULD fly 50+ flights a year given enough vehicles and personnel.. but
with current staff and equipment, 8 is about the best you'll get..)
My only point in my original post on this subject was my impression that
the "forcasts" of DC's performance seem to be growing each month, and it'd
be wise to keep in mind the pitfalls of history to aviod doing them again..
(I know NASA's working VERY hard to learn from it's mistakes and improve
it's performance)

: The differences are many and profound. Sure we need to insure the claims
: aren't overblown but at the same time, the claims being made ARE reasonable.
: We almost certainly can build a spacecraft which meets the DC goals for
: cost and availability. Saying we can't simply because another program
: made the same claims without addressing the differences just doesn't make
: sense.

I'd really like to see the rational behind the payload cost figures. I'd be
happy to analyze em out myself if somebody would be kind enough to post
them so I can see if my theories are sound.. again, the initial point
I was making (you know, I keep seeing these "Hi, how are you today?"/
"Hi, Yes I like Donuts." responses on the net..) was that those who
are posting DC claims should attempt to be careful about what they say,
and no more. I don't see quite how we expect multiple orders of magnatude
improvement in performance from what I've seen posted, but would LOVE
to be proved wrong if somebody cares to post relavent info.

: >perceptions of the system.. the shuttle didn't live up to ALL of the
: >inital claims, and so some label it a failure.

: Aside from payload, and maybe a few other minor requirements, Shuttle
: didn't live up to any of its claims. Calling it a failure is reasonable.

No.. it isn't reasonable. The shuttle system was and IS a remarkable
achivement, and a success given the scaled back design abilities
and requirements. Blaming NASA for the work of congress is hardly fair
or called for. In commercial industry, if a company decides to
develop a product, they will often expend the amount of funds required
to actually develop it. NASA ends up giving the nation a proposal X,
with a budget of $50MegaBucks, and congress turns around and tells NASA
to do proposal X, with the same requirements with a budget of $25MB's
and over a longer time span. I'd LOVE to see MD or another company be
effecient under those conditions.

: >and the requirements placed upon such
: >things by NASA/FAA/Congress/DOD.

: Which needs to change.

I agree.. unfortunatly it's in Congress's ballpark I beleive.. and if
you have the power to effect it, I'll be the first person in line to
thank ye for it.. if you can remove congress from the loop, or allow
NASA to play on the same "level playing field" as commercial industry,
I'd bet NASA would prove to give commercial industry  good run for it's
money.. but the games gotta start in congress..

[re: man rating]
: Which serves absolutely no useful purpose. Man rated launchers are no
: safer than non-man rated ones.

I disagree, but this is a whole seperate argument.. making a vechicle
man rated (thanks to national reg's) DOES require more safety and
reliability than a non man rated system. And the Shuttle's
reliability IS greater than it was when first flown.. by a significant
margin.. yes, shuttle is NOT an ideal system.. and I hope DC proves
to be a good replacement some day.. but until it's online we certainly
should keep the shuttle flying..

: If we can man rate Shuttle, man rating DC will be a snap.

I'd be sceptical it'll be as easy as you are guessing, but I'd be pleased
if it were.

: And yet these added costs don't affect reliability. Why bother with
: them? Sure, it covers somebody's ass, but what value does it add?

They DO add reliability.. most of the major improvements or redesigns
done on the shuttle have added reliability or survivability to
the vehicle.. I'd MUCH rather fly on today's shuttle than the one
flown ten years ago..

:    Allen
: +----------------------14 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

Mike
--
Michael C. Jensen    [e-mail] [e-mail]
Valparaiso University - Electrical Engineering / NASA - Johnson Space Center
"I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
*** Windows NT -- from the people who brought you edlin.. ***
---The opinions expressed are my own.. not NASA's or VU's..---

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 1993 16:26 EDT
From: "Oh boy, mayhem!" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hubble, Why the hurry?
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

Why do you perceive that NASA is rushing the repair mission? They
are prepared to launch at least a month late if necessary, but
things are moving smoothly so far and it looks reasonable to
be ready by December. I don't see that they are in any hurry,
could you tell me why you think there's a rush?

Jennifer

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 19:33:38 GMT
From: "Allen W. Sherzer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: message from Space Digest
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>Allen sherzer writes "..the SSTO with crossranges has about 16% more
>flightsover with to amortize it's overhead which means it operates maybe
>10% cheaper...

>As if anyone cares, you don't amortize overhead, you allocate it.

In Homer Simpson voice: Doht! You are of course correct. What I ment was
that you had more flights over which to amortize development costs and
vehicle acquisition costs (and associated interest). It also gives you
more flights per vehicle over which to allocate fixed overhead.

>The total overhead won't change that much (b/c the ssto with
>crossranges will require more servicing which is done inbetween
>flights).

Maybe or maybe not. With Shuttle crossrange wasn't worth it but with
DC it seems to be a fairly simple thing to do.

   Allen

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lady Astor:   "Sir, if you were my husband I would poison your coffee!"   |
| W. Churchill: "Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."             |
+----------------------14 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX-----------------------+

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 93 15:55:34 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: MESUR Pathfinder (Was Re: space news from April 12 AW&ST)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <21vm04$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Shari L Brooks) writes:
>>Pardon my ignorance, I'm behind the times.  What is NEAR?
> Near Earth ASteroid Rendevous.
>
> The Mission Plan is  still kind of vague,  but some guy from APL
> did this amazingly funny presentation where he showed how one can
> play Asteroid Billiards.

Just for the record, this was Robert Farqhuar, the Applied Physics
Laboratory astrodynamicist who became sorta famous when he proposed
diverting the ISEE-3 to fly past Comet Giacobini-Zinner in 1985.  He
was also involved in planning Giotto's second comet encounter, passing
Grigg-Skjellerup last year.  I went to the same presentation Pat did
at World Space Congress, and it was indeed amusing.  I guess the guy
is just good with orbits...

Engineer of Hijacked Train:      Bill Higgins
"Is this a holdup?"
                                 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Masked Gunman:
(Hesitates, looks at partner,    Bitnet: [e-mail]
looks at engineer again)         SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
"It's a science experiment!"     Internet: [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 1993 20:35:25 GMT
From: "Michael J. Black" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moon Cable/Beanstalk.
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Actually, you will need to buy up, or at least buy off ALL the local governements
>along the equator. In a worst-case catastrophe the cable will come down in pieces
>the whole way round.

Screw 'em.  Ever played the game Civilization?  First guy into space wins. All
the rest of the countries can just get out of the way.
-black

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 93 09:10:18 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: problem w/ZHR equation
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Earl W Phillips) writes:
> In trying to write a program around the recently
> posted ZHR equation, I am having trouble with 1
> of it's components. The equation for "C" in my
> program doesn't give a result anywhere near the
> example of 1.72, I get something like 4.6.
>
> C=2.6 times exp(6.5-5.93)=1.72
>
> Anybody got any idea what the problem is?

Well, 6.5 - 5.93 = 0.57

Then, 2.6 raised to 0.57 = 1.72

You must have just entered the equation incorrectly.

Don

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 93 15:51:22 GMT
From: Bob Kirkpatrick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Movie/PR..
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Martin Brown) writes:
>
> >Currently, people have very little opportunity to even see ANY space info,
> >even when your very interested.
>
> No, there is a lot of opportunity. The problem is that the public doesn't
> want to see it. The media gives us what we want and what we are interested
> in. The idea of space is of great interest but the way NASA does it won't
> keep public attention for very long. People want a space program which they
> can see themselves involved in and NASA gives us hugely expensive efforts
> for a small elite group. Sure it can grab headlines for a few days but
> since it doesn't involve them, people soon loose interest in favor of
> things which do involve them. It's entertainment and nothing more.

I read somewhere that American people showed it's greatest interest in the
space program when Challenger exploded. :-(

As to involving people in space, I've always thought that NASA should run
a national lottery --like the one many states do-- that for a buck you get
the possibility of a trip into space. Just recently, a man won the Idaho
'Powerball' lottery --took in 110 million dollars (over 20 years). It would
seem that if NASA did the same thing, they could fund themselves pretty
well. If the state can pay out 110 million and not blink, then think of how
much they took in...

Not only that, but it may get people behind the push into space. Lotteries
attract people in droves.


--
Bob Kirkpatrick -- Dog Ear'd Systems of Spokane, WA
I love my country. I'm just not fond of it's people and I hate the government.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 93 14:51:57 -0600
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: The U.S. and Mir
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David B. Mckissock) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Matthew DeLuca) writes...
>>  My question is this: has anyone actually talked to the Russians about
>>these ideas?
> I have never heard of anyone suggesting combining hardware from the
> US Space Station program with Mir. Using the Soyuz-TM as a crew
> escape vehicle on the US Station, yes. Consideration of using
> the Russian docking mechanism, yes.

Oh, yes.  Buzz Aldrin, for one, has been working on a design that
plugs an abbreviated SSF-style station, including the European and
Japanese modules, into Mir.  I heard part of a talk he gave on this in
Huntsville, and I know Dan Gauthier, who did the drawings for him.

Sorry I can't report more detail; maybe someone else can.  (I had to
leave before his talk really got going.) Aldrin's effort was covered
in *Space News* but the emphasis of the story was on how the redesign
team wasn't paying much attention to "outsider" ideas.  Note that he
is a private consultant and not working for NASA these days.

I also can't assess the extent to which Aldrin had conferred with
Russians about his designs, but I bet it was greater than zero...

Dave McKissock is one of our best sources of information, especially
on Fred and its redesign, so I hasten to add that none of this
contradicts what he says about activities between NASA and the
Russians.

                        ///        Bill Higgins
   E                   ///
  |8D:O:          occc))))<))      Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
   E                 ///
                    ///            Bitnet: higgins@fnal

Bumper sticker seen on a Soyuz:    SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS

 DON'T LAUGH-- IT'S PAID FOR       Internet: [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 1993 15:43:49 -0400
From: Jon Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle

    This notice will be posted weekly in sci.space, sci.astro, and
sci.space.shuttle.

    The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list for sci.space and sci.astro is
posted approximately monthly. It also covers many questions that come up on
sci.space.shuttle (for shuttle launch dates, see below).

    The FAQ is posted with a long expiration date, so a copy may be in your
news spool directory (look at old articles in sci.space). If not, here are
two ways to get a copy without waiting for the next posting:

    (1) If your machine is on the Internet, it can be obtained by anonymous
FTP from the SPACE archive at ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3) in directory
pub/SPACE/FAQ.

    (2) Otherwise, send email to '[e-mail]'
containing the single line:

help

    The archive server will return directions on how to use it. To get an
index of files in the FAQ directory, send email containing the lines:

send space FAQ/Index
send space FAQ/faq1

    Use these files as a guide to which other files to retrieve to answer
your questions.

    Shuttle launch dates are posted by Ken Hollis periodically in
sci.space.shuttle. A copy of his manifest is now available in the Ames
archive in pub/SPACE/FAQ/manifest and may be requested from the email
archive-server with 'send space FAQ/manifest'. Please get this document
instead of posting requests for information on launches and landings.

    Do not post followups to this article; respond to the author.

------------------------------

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 905
------------------------------